Talk:Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 19, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 9, 2014	Peer review	Not reviewed
November 14, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer review

I have moved the above discussion, which took place as the peer review was opened, to the peer review. The peer review is transcluded below: LT90001 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judges = special masters

This needs to be clarified but I don't have the time right now. To the uninitiated it does appear as if they are different people.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Not every article requires images and adding images that are at best peripheral is not the way to go. The measles image is debatable but the latest added image (I assume it is thimerosal) is not labeled properly and even it was it would still be debatable. Are there no images of protesters outside the court during the trial or something similar? Maybe an image of one of the claimants that is free use.--Daffydavid (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cedillo is NOT the Omnibus Autism Proceeding

I don't know how this happened, but the Omnibus Autism Proceeding contains 6 test cases, and Cedillo is one of them, but not all of them that established for the Vaccine Court that vaccines were not linked to autism. To conflate the Omnibus Autism Proceeding with Cedillo gives the reader a wrong impression on how this process happened. I don't even know where to start to fix this article, but I'd remove the redirect from Omnibus Autism Proceeding to this article. OAP requires its own article which would link to Cedillo. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I just removed the bolded OAP from the lead so it's not being portrayed as synonymous with this specific case, and I just tagged Omnibus Autism Proceeding for speedy deletion. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 01:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]